Thanks for the clarification CONF iture.
Re good preparation and second a stabilized approach; I agree the need, but as to achieving a stabilized approach at TUG in a tailwind, this should be possible - if the aircraft cannot be stabilised in the conditions then perhaps the approach should not be flown.
Re landing distances. I have not used actual landing distance in the way that you state; I only used factored distances, which in my interpretation of (old) JAR-OPS applied at all times except in an emergency.
The problem of promoting (using) unfactored distances in flight is that the need to add a factor before landing opens opportunity for error. Crews may only add a minimum factor without full consideration of all of the conditions, i.e. how wet is wet (damp – 2.9 mm), is the runway highly porous / grooved, or slick / rubber contaminated. At the low friction end of performance, a factor of 2.2 -2.4 might be required to achieve an equivalent safety level as dry operations (TC Research).
Re Tailwinds; the formulation of the landing distance requires 150% - see CS 25 / FAR 25.
One of the problems in this accident, and in previous, is exactly ‘what do we teach plots?’ This question could be extended to operator’s and airport managements. Lack of knowledge, both that originating from prior training and at the time of the event, are reappearing factors.